I have this crazy idea that, for a lot of these haters, it's a matter of them not really liking or respecting women in the first place.

Therefore, a trans* woman is a woman they have absolutely no use for - they don't think they're farkable, so to them they see no place whatsoever in society for them. You know, the "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, making me a sammich!" crowd.

Shedim:NFA: A Google image search for transgender came up with these.Hmmmm apparently not the same people at the march.

Somebody went overboard on the Photoshop with those pictures; they look like mannequins. Especially the fourth one.

I've gone to events with gay friends for years. I usually enjoy the drag queen shows. There are often guys that look just like those pics, usually in the audience, not on stage. I never know if they're transgender or just transvestite, but some of them just look too beautiful to be real.

0z79:I have this crazy idea that, for a lot of these haters, it's a matter of them not really liking or respecting women in the first place.

Therefore, a trans* woman is a woman they have absolutely no use for - they don't think they're farkable, so to them they see no place whatsoever in society for them. You know, the "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, making me a sammich!" crowd.

That's kind of overthinking it. The thread of truth behind the "war on women" and the "war on gays" roots back to a general problem with "non-traditional" behavior (the "war on women" is a war on women who eschew traditional gender roles, not all women).The "war on transgender people" has some intersections with both of those, but "women" aren't the root cause. "being different" is.

I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

0z79:I have this crazy idea that, for a lot of these haters, it's a matter of them not really liking or respecting women in the first place.

Therefore, a trans* woman is a woman they have absolutely no use for - they don't think they're farkable, so to them they see no place whatsoever in society for them. You know, the "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, making me a sammich!" crowd.

That's possible. Although some gay men are deeply misogynistic & there are lesbians who fit the stereotypical "man-hater" image.... Maybe it's more likely to be human nature at work: some people genuinely don't understand, some people get freaked by that which is different, some people are just vile and so on.

I'm a straight woman. Would I be able to identify particularly with you as a trans*woman? Probably not, because our experiences of being a woman are so utterly different. And I think that's true, especially for the older generations e.g. Jan Morris on the '53 Everest expedition [as James Morris] who was only there because she hadn't yet transitioned. In 1953 a woman - any woman - would not have been selected for that ascent, so in effect Jan Morris got an opportunity not available to her contemporaries. But, would I be able to identify with you as another human being, absolutely - and that's what really matters.

nyrB:I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

That's not really analogous since Napoleon is a specific person. There aren't many things outside of gender where people are pigeonholed into two boxes.

serial_crusher:0z79: I have this crazy idea that, for a lot of these haters, it's a matter of them not really liking or respecting women in the first place.

Therefore, a trans* woman is a woman they have absolutely no use for - they don't think they're farkable, so to them they see no place whatsoever in society for them. You know, the "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, making me a sammich!" crowd.

That's kind of overthinking it. The thread of truth behind the "war on women" and the "war on gays" roots back to a general problem with "non-traditional" behavior (the "war on women" is a war on women who eschew traditional gender roles, not all women).The "war on transgender people" has some intersections with both of those, but "women" aren't the root cause. "being different" is.

THIS. All of the assorted bigotry's, racism, sexism, fatty hating, dork hating, religious hating, etc. They're all different manifestations of the evolved social bonding mechanism of man.

Dislike and mistrust of that which is different can strengthen the bond of any given group.

In group dynamics, say, a military troop of 25 members, a single odd man out can serve a role, the blacksheep, and all get along with each other better and more efficiently and more trustingly, because they funnel all the mistrust at the outsider. Military trainers have known this forever, it's why each man gets ribbed and mocked so hard by the TI(training instructor). He know's it's going to happen eventually, and he labels some of those with the biggest flaws(negative attitude, not physically fit, likely to buck authority anyway). Instead of 5 little close groups, there's a cohesive unit of 24 men, 25 if the other kid doesn't let it get to him and comes along far enough to gain approval from the others.

That's a common manipulation of the effect but it happens all of the time. Occasionally it backfires in a non-manipulated environment, the animosity doesn't cease, and in fact grows. the outlier revels in it's ostracism as a compensation for rejection and develops it's own animosity.

That is the level a lot of society is at. That's why I made my previous posts, but it's obviously futile, imo. True believers on either side won't be swayed or convinced that they could be wrong.

nyrB:I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

I look at it as a "mind your own business" thing. We don't just lock people in asylums if they haven't hurt anybody.If you think you're Napolean, so you spend your days bowling and eating Ziggy Piggies, I could care less. It's when you try to conquer Europe that it becomes a problem.

That said, there's a couple areas where I think it becomes the rest of our business. i.e. there was a big argument going on a while back about whether medicare should cover sex changes. Government programs are every voter's business (of course, it's best to put qualified experts in the position to make that decision, not armchair internet psychologists like me. I take a "play the hand you're dealt" attitude to most situations, but the mental health community seems to disagree (the cynic in me says it's because they make more money this way)). There's also the gray area of when "looking weird" crosses enough social boundaries to be considered harmful. There is a certain point where people just say "oh come on". I don't think a man in a dress qualifies as that big of a deal, but maybe you do?

Bathrooms are an interesting experiment in "tolerance". We grant that there's a difference between men and women, and that they need separate bathrooms, but the second you get somebody who's not so easily characterized, you've got to do something with them. I say just have one bathroom that we all share and get over ourselves. Hearing a chick poop isn't going to kill you.

nyrB:I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

It would be one thing if a person simply "identified" as the opposite sex, and then behaved as a sane, rational, well-adjusted member of the opposite sex.

The reality is that these individuals typically exhibit symptoms of mental/emotional pathologies that may suggest that their sexual identification is part of a larger mental health concern.

If a man wants to be a woman or vice versa, who gives a shiat? But often they want I also be assholes, and have their assholishness protected under the guise of transgender rights.

"I don't understand this big ruckus about this so called sizable tan population in Seattle! It's not their fault it rains so much! Just because there's less tan people in Seattle,,, doesn't mean there's no sizable,,,, "

Trans folks face a fair amount of discrimination, even among the LGB community. It's not just about homophobes, but about folks who are uncomfortable with trans folks who break a lot of stereotypes, and challenge a lot of folks notions about gender.

And that is what is at the heart of it.

Gender identity is at times mutable. It challenges folks' notions about who someone is, who they can be, and it makes some folks uncomfortable. In many cases, LGB folks who are fighting for recognition, it can seem to be a distraction, and it plays into stereotypes, as well as challenges some notions that folks have been trying to mainstream for some time. It derails some feminist and gay dogma that has been around for years. Trans folks challenge expectations and notions of what gender is, and to some, they feel they muddy the waters and makes the ground to defend so wide, that it is difficult to get a single message across.

And it's not hard. Folks want their own dignity. They define themselves. Folks deserve their own dignity, to live their lives, to love who they love, and not be judged on others' expectations. Be they gay and like to dress in drag for fun. Be they lesbian and have a butch bend. Be they a man who feels trapped in his own body by a quirk of brain chemistry. Be they a woman who is the same boat. Be they a man who has been traumatized to the point of hating his own gender, and looking for a respite and an escape, a place to feel safe and who needs the time to come to grips with things. For a woman in the same boat. Gender is less about polar opposites, as opposed to a scale that rings with many notes. And accepting folks who are different, isn't that hard. Is it something that challenges you? Quite possibly. Is it going to hurt you to call someone who you knew as a man at first, and then wants to transition? Not really. If they are important to you, their relationship is important to you, then you support them. Support people. Support them, and help them, and sometimes that does mean digging a bit to get to know them better. To understand what's going on.

Had a good friend who really hated being a man. Yes, there was a lot of trauma in his background. He hated the whole mess, and for him, he wanted to be shut of the whole shebang, and live as a woman. We supported her as she wanted to be, but likewise, we wanted her to get some more than cursory counseling. She met a woman who loved her. Who accepted her. And in that relationship, our friend had the realization that while the gender didn't matter to her lover, she really wanted her to be well. To be happy. To shed a lot of weight that she'd been carrying. And that halted her from going the full transition. In the end, he accepted who he was, that the damage that he carried was his own, and that it had made him a stronger human, and it was in that cocoon of safety that he'd retreated into, for a time, that helped him see that the gender wasn't the issue at all. But the process, the steps, were important for him to come full circle.

Not everyone is that case though. Some folks have brain chemistry quirks that aren't the result of trauma or damage. Some folks are born different. And supporting folks in their journey, that's up to us. To help our brothers and sisters, or at least not actively be douchebags to them on their journey. There is a difference between helping folks figure their sh*t out, and questioning their motives, and just being an asshat.

Glad to see things are getting normalized. Got no problem with straights/gays/transes/aliens, whatever at all, just so long as said person is truthful in their personal relationships and upfront about what they are to the other.

When you throw parades that make you seem/look like the normal folk you can be, you get acceptance. So pleased to not see the idiots who used to walk down the street 75% naked, wearing a strap-on, and pantomiming sucking cock in plain view of the public in broad daylight we used to see. That shiat ruins the movement for everyone.

serial_crusher:nyrB: I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

I look at it as a "mind your own business" thing. We don't just lock people in asylums if they haven't hurt anybody.If you think you're Napolean, so you spend your days bowling and eating Ziggy Piggies, I could care less. It's when you try to conquer Europe that it becomes a problem.

My biggest problem is that we, as a society are expected to "play along" and if we don't, we're somehow "intolerant". If you want to pretend you're something you're not that's fine. That's totally you're business. Pretend you're a tree for all I care. But don't expect me to call you a tree.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:nyrB: I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

It would be one thing if a person simply "identified" as the opposite sex, and then behaved as a sane, rational, well-adjusted member of the opposite sex.

The reality is that these individuals typically exhibit symptoms of mental/emotional pathologies that may suggest that their sexual identification is part of a larger mental health concern.

If a man wants to be a woman or vice versa, who gives a shiat? But often they want I also be assholes, and have their assholishness protected under the guise of transgender rights.

The American Psychological Association, in one of their pamphlets about transgenderism, attempts to claim that it is not a psychological disorder. It defines a psychological disorder as a state which causes one "significant distress". I should think if you are in a position where you are so uncomfortable with the way you were born that you feel compelled to undergo surgical operations to transform your body into something else, then you're probably under significant distress. But what do I know?

GhostFish:Studies have shown that transgender individuals have differences in their brain physiology.

You can disagree with how they choose to act upon their internal, biological conflict. But hating on them simply for existing and thinking that they're just a bunch of social deviants is incredibly ignorant and cruel.

That's the thing. These people do NOT care that there is hard science identifying that this is a biological issue. They do not care that gender is influenced by more than the Sex Chromosomes someone has. Because that would go against their very doctrine by which they attack these people.

It's the reason people who have such disdain and hatred for those with gender or sexual variations want to label it as a "behavioral choice" or "lifestyle", or even go so far as to vilify it as nothing more than a "sexual fetish". Because by doing so, they can paint the individual as an evil, sinful person - or call into question their morality. The idea of these issues being hard wired into the human body, something they did not "choose" to become is unacceptable because it would put them on the same level as those who persecute others for their national origins, racial ethnicity, or because they have an illness or disorder they were born with.

They WANT this to be seen as a behavioral or moral choice. Because that way, they can vilify the person who doesn't "choose" to be as they are.

nyrB:I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

nyrB:The American Psychological Association, in one of their pamphlets about transgenderism, attempts to claim that it is not a psychological disorder. It defines a psychological disorder as a state which causes one "significant distress". I should think if you are in a position where you are so uncomfortable with the way you were born that you feel compelled to undergo surgical operations to transform your body into something else, then you're probably under significant distress. But what do I know?

Not a lot about the topic, because diagnosing someone with a mental health disorder is NOT as cut and dry as you make it sound. You cannot diagnose one like you do a MI or infection. The actual definition of a psychiatric disorder is complex, and involves the level of distress it causes in a person's life, as well as the harm it causes to that person and others around them. Transgenderism is not something that can be treated through behavioral modification or medication - it cannot be eliminated because it is a very part of that person's neurological structure. Their brain is female, even though their external sex organs are male; or vice versa.

So the option becomes - do you do serious harm to someone by forcing them to conform to the gender they are not, or do you treat and eliminate the issue in the best manner for all involved.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:It would be one thing if a person simply "identified" as the opposite sex, and then behaved as a sane, rational, well-adjusted member of the opposite sex.

The reality is that these individuals typically exhibit symptoms of mental/emotional pathologies that may suggest that their sexual identification is part of a larger mental health concern.

Is this reality you speak of anecdotal, or was there some kind of objective study I don't know about?

I admit I've only met a handful of trans people, but in my experience they aren't particularly damaged, and certainly not more than one could fairly expect for a person who's had to wade though those issues their entire lives.

nyrB:serial_crusher: nyrB: I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

I look at it as a "mind your own business" thing. We don't just lock people in asylums if they haven't hurt anybody.If you think you're Napolean, so you spend your days bowling and eating Ziggy Piggies, I could care less. It's when you try to conquer Europe that it becomes a problem.

My biggest problem is that we, as a society are expected to "play along" and if we don't, we're somehow "intolerant". If you want to pretend you're something you're not that's fine. That's totally you're business. Pretend you're a tree for all I care. But don't expect me to call you a tree.

Then how about this:

or, if that doesn't grab you, how about simply this:

You don't have to understand, you don't have to particularly even care about someone, but in the end, it's helpful to simply not be a douche. Be, kind, babies. Be kind. That's the only hard and fast rule.

Hickory-smoked:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It would be one thing if a person simply "identified" as the opposite sex, and then behaved as a sane, rational, well-adjusted member of the opposite sex.

The reality is that these individuals typically exhibit symptoms of mental/emotional pathologies that may suggest that their sexual identification is part of a larger mental health concern.

Is this reality you speak of anecdotal, or was there some kind of objective study I don't know about?

I admit I've only met a handful of trans people, but in my experience they aren't particularly damaged, and certainly not more than one could fairly expect for a person who's had to wade though those issues their entire lives.

Anecdotal, though I've never researched the subject so there may be "studies" out there.

And I have nothing against trans people, they should have all rights and abilities of non-trans people. I just wish the ones I met would stop trying to excuse their personality disorders with their sexual identification. Good for you, you were born a woman but are "a man in the inside." That doesn't give you an excuse to be a douchebag.

GhostFish:So what's your stance on people with androgen insensitivity syndrome? How do you want to classify those people into your nice, clean binary definitions?

I don't have "nice clean binary definitions". I willingly recognize that there are a small percentage of people who don't fall into either the "male" or "female" category for various biological reasons. But this isn't really about them -- it's about the vast majority of those that consider themselves transgendered for purely psychological reasons. For me it's simple: if you're biologically a man, then you're a man. It reminds me of that Monty Python skit where the guy wanted a cat so the pet shop owner offered to take a dog, file his legs down, remove its snout, put some wires through its cheeks, and voila: a dog!

RKade:I'd ask why they need to go so far (in regards to the surgery as opposed to just dealing with the hand they were dealt) but I did that in another thread and never got a good answer beyond "UR A BIGOT ND HOMOPHOBE LOLOLOL!" so I guess I'll just say...

Because, ultimately, the very diagnosis of transsexuality/transgender is that this mismatch between your body and gender is so distressing that the surgical modification to your body so that your outside comes that much closer to fitting what could be accurately called your residual self image (pulled from The Matrix, but operative and important here), in addition to hormone therapy, may be the only thing to alleviate that rather extreme distress. I don't know if it qualifies as "good enough" for you, but it happens to be true.

Good for them. Where's my cripple march/roll?

Strangely, it's still not considered a lesser crime in many states to kill somebody out of "cripple panic," and prosecution when people beat the shiat out of cripples on the streets isn't avoided by local conservative District Attorneys on grounds of their crippled status. As a matter of fact, in most cases, it's thought of as a more egregious crime, and "cripples" (which is an awful term) by law have many accommodations nearly universally to attempt to give them an equal shot at life. Whether those are adequate is a different discussion entirely. You will find that handicapable organizations and benefit societies often participate in other parades, including Pride, though, so in a way there is.

/Just had a friend come out to me as TG/about to start her transition.//I have told her that I will be with her and support her every step of the way, because it is one hell of a hard process.

serial_crusher:There's also the gray area of when "looking weird" crosses enough social boundaries to be considered harmful. There is a certain point where people just say "oh come on". I don't think a man in a dress qualifies as that big of a deal, but maybe you do?

Slightly off your point, I think it largely depends on not just dress vs no dress (or the closely related skirt... I meant kilt), but the actual fashion value. A year or so ago there was a story on Fark about a cross dressing high school student and pretty much 99% of the negative comments on Fark weren't "OMG, boy dressing in girls clothes" but "um, dude... that outfit doesn't go together, regardless of your sex." To note, shorts with tights almost never go well together anyways.

MrEricSir:That's not really analogous since Napoleon is a specific person. There aren't many things outside of gender where people are pigeonholed into two boxes.

But why should we accept pigeonholing into two boxes?

The whole trans* thing reifies the "gender binary" like nothing else. Heaven forbid we all gender bend, we all just be ourselves and admit that the shape of our junk doesn't need to have fark all to do with how we think or feel or how our personalities are.

No, no! We must have the two boxes, as commonly constructed, but you must put me in the OTHER box!!!

nyrB:serial_crusher: nyrB: I don't think I'll ever truly understand transgenderism and why we, as a society, are supposed to "tolerate" its practice. If I told everyone I "identified" as Napolean, does that make me Napolean? As I've said before, our asylums are full of people who believe they're something they're not. Maybe someone here will be able to explain it to me, but I doubt it.

I look at it as a "mind your own business" thing. We don't just lock people in asylums if they haven't hurt anybody. If you think you're Napolean, so you spend your days bowling and eating Ziggy Piggies, I could care less. It's when you try to conquer Europe that it becomes a problem.

My biggest problem is that we, as a society are expected to "play along" and if we don't, we're somehow "intolerant". If you want to pretend you're something you're not that's fine. That's totally you're business. Pretend you're a tree for all I care. But don't expect me to call you a tree.

Intersexism is better understood because we can measure things like the chromosomal and hormonal and physical differences. Transgenderism it seems is more subtle and most likely rooted in the genes and brain structure and chemistry. Those are things we don't understand quite so well and are harder to measure.

People like to equate being trans to pretending to be something you're not and give examples like Napoleon or being a dolphin. Except, I can't be Napoleon. He was a specific individual and unless you believe in reincarnation it's not possible to be him. Likewise, one can't be a dolphin because we are not that species. What we are is human. Human genetics and DNA and within those blueprints is the sum total of what we are capable of being. There's still a lot we don't understand about how the human body/brain work but we do know things don't always go according to plan. So, being a dolphin? Not without a lot of genetic engineering and maybe not even then. Some trigger causing a person to develop characteristics/brain structure and chemistry, etc of the other gender? Possible.

No, there is no definitive proof. Yet. The research is starting to pile up though. So yeah, by all means remain skeptical but it's not as farfetched as you might think.

esp in this thread, lol! I mean, it's amazing how many "experts" we have in this thread who THINK they seem to know all about Transgender people when they don't know the first thing and it's just their opinion.

ACunningPlan:Jan Morris on the '53 Everest expedition [as James Morris] who was only there because she hadn't yet transitioned. In 1953 a woman - any woman - would not have been selected for that ascent, so in effect Jan Morris got an opportunity not available to her contemporaries.

Now imagine - if Jan Morris is retroactively written up as a woman in records and is used to say that's the first woman to climb Everest, and so that proves that women complaining about discrimination have no cause to complain.

You wouldn't find that... problematic?

A more recent example, people go on and on about wow, Lana Wachowski shows just what amazing things women can do in the movies, etc etc. As if those various accomplishments would have necessarily happened the same (or with the same PRIVILEGE working!) if Lana hadn't been a man (as outwardly judged by all and sundry) at the time.

Well, it's skeptical too. The studies are fairly small, don't take into account homosexuality, and the main thing - they are trying to predict individual behaviors based on bell curve averages, which is bad science no matter WHAT the field is.

I mean, forget trans* issues for a moment.

There's a related field out there trying to show that we need to have sex-segregated schooling for kids because there are slight differences in the means of various bell curves related to some mental tasks, hearing acuity, that sort of thing. And the studies are already sketchy (small sample size is just the beginning - language log at upenn has more details), but it's the same problem - people trying to apply a bell curve difference to predict individuals.

I mean, if there are seriously differences between the sexes in kids, then if you left everyone to their own devices, they'd sort themselves out. But that's never done, instead, policing is supposedly required. It's bullshiat.

How about just letting everyone be themselves and not requiring any particular "matching" between naughty bits and personality?

If someone feels more comfortable in 2013 social world (where sadly gender policing is a thing) by getting various plastic surgery than so be it, I'm happy to live and let live and all that. But stop it with the "oh, there's a 'female brain'" thing already.

GhostFish:nyrB: GhostFish: So what's your stance on people with androgen insensitivity syndrome? How do you want to classify those people into your nice, clean binary definitions?

I don't have "nice clean binary definitions". I willingly recognize that there are a small percentage of people who don't fall into either the "male" or "female" category for various biological reasons. But this isn't really about them -- it's about the vast majority of those that consider themselves transgendered for purely psychological reasons. For me it's simple: if you're biologically a man, then you're a man. It reminds me of that Monty Python skit where the guy wanted a cat so the pet shop owner offered to take a dog, file his legs down, remove its snout, put some wires through its cheeks, and voila: a dog!

It's not like there are a lot of transgendered people out there. Who are you to say that the majority of them are acting out psychological conflicts rather than biological ones?

Psychological or biological?

They are the same despite the extensive theories to the contrary, it truly is nothing more than electric impulses and chemical reactions in the brain.

You want to change your appearance farking giver, expect everyone else to go along it likely wont go over so well.

Frankly expecting others to accept what they dont want is as unfair as them not accepting you.

esp in this thread, lol! I mean, it's amazing how many "experts" we have in this thread who THINK they seem to know all about Transgender people when they don't know the first thing and it's just their opinion.

Reality for you here chum... Opinion is all anyone has due to the world not being digital, it is caos friend at all times and everywhere.